Don't ask Don't tell

[Posting a link?]

Forum Guidelines
Posting a link? Read This!

Forgot your password? Need help?
Click Here To Contact Us

Mudflats Merchandise
AKMuckraker Amazon Store
Support AKM Merchandise

Download it here!

[daMamma]

When my dad was in the service he had a hard time blustering about 'gays in the military'.  It was the military party line, but not how he honestly felt about it.  Which way someone else's door swings was none of his business and he couldn't care less.  What mattered most to him, as a guy that was in Korea and Vietnam, can he count on the guy next to him? 

That is the only thing that really matters.  Whether or not you can has nothing to do with sexuality/preferences and everything to do with being able to act without thinking when one has to.

[Alex]

Paul,

I think you're making the mistake of judging all gay people by the gay people who dress in drag and by the more outrageous things that happen at Gay Pride parades.

I have to ask, if being gay is supposed to be no big deal. If being gay is supposed to be accepted by society as just a different sexual orientation and nothing to get excited about. If being gay is just a part of normal life. Then why the need to proclaim pride in being gay? What's to be proud of? Why the need to let others know that 1. You’re gay, and 2. you take pride in it? It's just a naturally occurring sexual orientation, so what's to be proud of?

You might say the same thing about Irish people and St. Patrick's day.  If being Irish is acceptable by society, why do they need a special day or a parade?

And the answer is most of them don't.  Most Irish people do not define themselves by St. Patrick's day drinking, parties, wearing green (and "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" shirts).  If you focus on that one aspect as representing everything you know about the Irish, you're missing most of the picture.

Similarly, if you focus on guys wearing lipstick, men or women dressing in drag, or marching in a pride parade, you're missing most of the picture there too.

My guess is that there are a lot of gay men and women in your town, at your job, or in your local places of worship -- men who don't wear lipstick or women's clothes, people who are just living their lives and doing all the normal things everyone else does.  

If you want to be in the military, and you are gay, then that's great. My only suggestion is that if you are one of those homosexuals who are carrying it, to leave all the associated baggage at the recruiting desk.

Again, you're assuming that all gay people are flamboyant.  And I'd argue that someone who's flamboyant and focused on drawing attention to him or herself probably isn't a good fit for the military -- gay or straight, male or female.  Sure, RuPaul probably wouldn't make a great soldier, but neither would Paris Hilton.

The military requires certain standards of conduct and limits certain expressions of individuality.  

My argument is that there are lots of qualified gay men and women who meet those standards and are willing to live with those limits who can (and have) been discharged because they are gay.  That's just wrong.

[old salt]

Thanks Alex...you said it better than I did!

[Sister Artemis]

Paul68, your response is long, and I don't have time to go through each part of your post right now.  But for the time being...

I have to ask, if being gay is supposed to be no big deal. If being gay is supposed to be accepted by society as just a different sexual orientation and nothing to get excited about. If being gay is just a part of normal life. Then why the need to proclaim pride in being gay? What's to be proud of? Why the need to let others know that 1. You’re gay, and 2. you take pride in it? It's just a naturally occurring sexual orientation, so what's to be proud of?

Let's put it this way:  being gay SHOULD be no big deal.  It SHOULD be just one of the many potentials in a human's life when it comes to love, romance.  But right now, it IS a big deal, primarily in two ways. 

The first is that folks react to someone being gay (or finding out someone is gay); in other words, the on-looker (as I'll term it) is making the big deal when considering a person who is gay.  They might sneer, they might skip over a promotion for that person, they might beat the crap out of them, or on the flip side, that onlooker might just want someone who is openly gay to engage in a conversation about being gay in an anti-gay society.

The second is that for most of us, being gay is not something we automatically figure out, it comes to us over time, and in that discovery, we have to unlearn the assumptions (of COURSE I'm going to grow up and date the opposite sex, of COURSE I should dress or act or talk such and such a way, etc.) and also learn to live with being gay in a sometimes-violently and often subtly anti-gay world.  The world around doesn't allow us to forget that we are "different" than the other 90% of folks, so we react with both anger and pride.  When the world around us stops making a big deal, we won't need to anymore. 

As Old Salt and others commented, most of the time we don't even know the person next to us - whether in the barrack or in line at the supermarket - is gay.  In my opinion, that's the ideal.  My family, in fact, lives that ideal:  my brother brings his wife home for Christmas, I bring my girlfriend home for Christmas.  We live somewhat different lives, but not just in our sexualities (we also live different work lives, incomes, spiritualities, politics, etc.), so it becomes part of the diversity of my family, and just one of the many variables instead of being THE variable.

Paul68, I think you are confusing a LOT of things in your post.  If I have time, I'll try to address some of them later.  But for now, just know that a lot of the seeming difference you are sensitive to is a combination of a few gay people needing to make a stand (and that's their right, IMO) and your own discomfort based on unfamiliarity with the wide diversity of gay people.

[peter d]

Jon Stewart and John Oliver pointing out the affect of the elderly in the US Senate. Or don’t ask, don’t tell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/john-oliver-stop-letting_n_449053.html

[paul68]

Paul,

I think you're making the mistake of judging all gay people by the gay people who dress in drag and by the more outrageous things that happen at Gay Pride parades.

I have to ask, if being gay is supposed to be no big deal. If being gay is supposed to be accepted by society as just a different sexual orientation and nothing to get excited about. If being gay is just a part of normal life. Then why the need to proclaim pride in being gay? What's to be proud of? Why the need to let others know that 1. You’re gay, and 2. you take pride in it? It's just a naturally occurring sexual orientation, so what's to be proud of?

You might say the same thing about Irish people and St. Patrick's day.  If being Irish is acceptable by society, why do they need a special day or a parade?

And the answer is most of them don't.  Most Irish people do not define themselves by St. Patrick's day drinking, parties, wearing green (and "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" shirts).  If you focus on that one aspect as representing everything you know about the Irish, you're missing most of the picture.

Similarly, if you focus on guys wearing lipstick, men or women dressing in drag, or marching in a pride parade, you're missing most of the picture there too.

My guess is that there are a lot of gay men and women in your town, at your job, or in your local places of worship -- men who don't wear lipstick or women's clothes, people who are just living their lives and doing all the normal things everyone else does.  

If you want to be in the military, and you are gay, then that's great. My only suggestion is that if you are one of those homosexuals who are carrying it, to leave all the associated baggage at the recruiting desk.

Again, you're assuming that all gay people are flamboyant.  And I'd argue that someone who's flamboyant and focused on drawing attention to him or herself probably isn't a good fit for the military -- gay or straight, male or female.  Sure, RuPaul probably wouldn't make a great soldier, but neither would Paris Hilton.

The military requires certain standards of conduct and limits certain expressions of individuality.  

My argument is that there are lots of qualified gay men and women who meet those standards and are willing to live with those limits who can (and have) been discharged because they are gay.  That's just wrong.

For starters, I in no way encompassed the entire population of gays. I thought I was pretty clear in who I was targeting. If I was not, I apologize for not being clearer although I 'm not sure how I could have been.


An ethnic origin, such as with the Irish comparison, is not at all comparable to sexual orientation.  It is history, ancestors, country, heritage. It IS a valid source of pride.  Gays who choose to display their sexual orientation in flamboyant or aggressive ways are not displaying a pride in their ancestory or their heritage. They are trying to declare to others, whether they care to know or not, that they are attracted to the same sex. And I suspect, that the majority really don't care. A lot however, don't agree with it. Some are very offended by it. If SOME gays are going to insist on putting it on display, then they are going to have to accept the consequences, the reactions, and the image they are creating.

I believe I already addressed the fact that there are plenty of gays that you would never know were gay. I even asked why that would be. No one answered.

And yet again as per your last sentences. No, I did not assume all were flamboyant. My statement clearly stated that IF you were one of those carrying that baggage (ie feeling the need to be flamboyant and cause disruption or distraction with your sexual preference), then leave it at the recruiting desk. I think you are making the mistake of miscomprehending my statements

Despite not being gay, I can assure you, having a gay sister, who I have been quite close to all my life, has given me a very good understanding of what gays are like which is pretty much like anyone else. They are my family, friends, and associates.

I've been to their parties, been bar hopping with em, worked with them and everything else, just like with anyone else.

I've also been privvy to some very candid discussions with a lot of gays as a result. I could tell you about how I've been told outright by gay men, that they love shocking folks with their actions. I could tell you about the gay women who make fun of other gay women because they try too hard to act like a male.

I could also tell you about the gay women who ended up pretty damn good friends of mine, who I've had to steer my buddies away from, because they were barking up the wrong tree with their flirting meaning unless I said something, my buddies would never have known that the girl hanging out with me was gay.

I don't think I can be any clearer.

[daMamma]

@peter d
That was hilarious!  I love Jon Stewart, the guy really knows how to make a point and skewer politicians so artfully.

 

[paul68]

Let me see if I can make this concise and head off any problems since I'm apparently not being very clear.

I am in favor of removing any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I think the current policies and past, are the result of knee jerk reactions and poor judgement.

I think the military is HOWEVER well within it's rights to reject anyone who is not fully adhering to the military's rules of conduct and that includes anyone who violates it with their attempts to display their sexual orientation.

Hope that clears things up.

[Lani]

... I think the military is HOWEVER well within it's rights to reject anyone who is not fully adhering to the military's rules of conduct and that includes anyone who violates it with their attempts to display their sexual orientation. ...

And if they are attempting to display their heterosexuality?

[Forty Watt]

And if they are attempting to display their heterosexuality?

A lot of that goes on apparently, given that the rape statistics only tell a part of the story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html


Excuse a small detour from the topic at hand.

[paul68]

... I think the military is HOWEVER well within it's rights to reject anyone who is not fully adhering to the military's rules of conduct and that includes anyone who violates it with their attempts to display their sexual orientation. ...

And if they are attempting to display their heterosexuality?

If it's in violation, what's the difference?

[old salt]

No Forty Watt I think it's exactly on topic. Sexual conduct between members of the armed forces whether it be homosexual or heterosexual is dealt with in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Sadly Paul68 seems to think it only pertains to homosexuals.  

[paul68]

No Forty Watt I think it's exactly on topic. Sexual conduct between members of the armed forces whether it be homosexual or heterosexual is dealt with in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Sadly Paul68 seems to think it only pertains to homosexuals.  

What is it with you guys misrepresenting another posters position? Straw man arguments are nothing but a waste of time. If you don't mind, I'll state my own thoughts for myself and would appreciate them being kept intact.

No. Paul thinks that behaviour that is deliberately attention seeking and disruptive is correctly looked upon negatively by the military.

[Lani]

... I think the military is HOWEVER well within it's rights to reject anyone who is not fully adhering to the military's rules of conduct and that includes anyone who violates it with their attempts to display their sexual orientation. ...

And if they are attempting to display their heterosexuality?

If it's in violation, what's the difference?

Well, that is my question.  What is the difference?  What is the display of heterosexuality that is a violation?  You have provided examples of what you feel is unacceptable gay behavior.  What is unacceptable hetero behavior?  When is that in someone's face?

You mentioned above "that includes anyone who violates it with their attempts to display their sexual orientation".  What would that be for a man?  Kissing females?  Girlie calendar?  Seen openly dating a woman?  Talking about a great date with an attractive woman?  Strutting?  Talking macho?  Where does one draw the line?

[paul68]

And those are good questions Lani. I imagine it would again have to fall within the realm of overt exaggeration, and how disruptive or out of the ordinary it was. I'm not a policy maker for the military so it wouldn't be up to me to make the distinction. But considering as has been so kindly pointed out that the military already has policy for such things, and no apparent complaints are existent about anyone being too male, or too female, I don't see it being much of a problem.

Rape btw is not "displaying your heterosexuality". It's sexual assault and battery, and gays commit that crime too.

[Lani]

It would be nice to add the actual language of the policies to this discussion.  Absent that, I'm guessing "out of the ordinary" means not stereotypically hetero.  And amongst the heteros, a man cannot be too male or a woman too female. 

The problem for some is when a person doesn't fit the ordinary ("normal", hetero, majority) image of their gender.  And that includes, as all of us have seen in our lives, quieter or "nerdy" males being called gay and athletic or powerful (politics, business, etc.) women being called lesbians.

[Alex]

Paul,

I don't want it to seem like everyone's picking on you -- I appreciate that you clarified your position and it seems like there's much more common ground than disagreement on this issue.

But, having said that... and you having said this:

And those are good questions Lani. I imagine it would again have to fall within the realm of overt exaggeration, and how disruptive or out of the ordinary it was. I'm not a policy maker for the military so it wouldn't be up to me to make the distinction. But considering as has been so kindly pointed out that the military already has policy for such things, and no apparent complaints are existent about anyone being too male, or too female, I don't see it being much of a problem.

It seems like a bit of a cop-out for you to say you're not a military policy maker when it comes to hetero behavior, but to clearly set out what you think is unacceptable for gay behaviors.

I'm not an expert on this, but I do remember there being consistent complaints about males being too sexually aggressive towards women in the military (even though the military culture of putting up with this sort of thing or chalking it up to hazing might make people reluctant to report it).

And you're totally right about rape, which is much more a crime of violence and control than an expression of sexuality.

[paul68]

Paul,

I don't want it to seem like everyone's picking on you -- I appreciate that you clarified your position and it seems like there's much more common ground than disagreement on this issue.

But, having said that... and you having said this:

And those are good questions Lani. I imagine it would again have to fall within the realm of overt exaggeration, and how disruptive or out of the ordinary it was. I'm not a policy maker for the military so it wouldn't be up to me to make the distinction. But considering as has been so kindly pointed out that the military already has policy for such things, and no apparent complaints are existent about anyone being too male, or too female, I don't see it being much of a problem.

It seems like a bit of a cop-out for you to say you're not a military policy maker when it comes to hetero behavior, but to clearly set out what you think is unacceptable for gay behaviors.

I'm not an expert on this, but I do remember there being consistent complaints about males being too sexually aggressive towards women in the military (even though the military culture of putting up with this sort of thing or chalking it up to hazing might make people reluctant to report it).

And you're totally right about rape, which is much more a crime of violence and control than an expression of sexuality.

LOL. Picking on me doesn't worry me. Been around the forums circuit for many years and I've had my share of disagreements. I just take issue with putting the effort into honest discussion and having to deal with correcting argumentative fallacies instead of working with the actual subject at hand.

I guess it WAS a bit of a cop out Alex. Mainly because there are going to be too many individual perspectives on what constitutes acceptable behaviour. We could argue that for years. That's why there are governing bodies in our society to set out rules. Those rules may not be acceptable to every single member of society, just look at all the laws on the books for examples, but without some form of an enforced concensus or agreement anarchy will reign. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it works quite well.


I would argue that yes, there are examples of exaggerated hetero behaviour. Haven't you ever met a guy who was so over the top you wanted to slug em? Or a woman who played up her femininity so far to the extreme it border on idiocy?

My point is, the military does not care how you would like to dress, how you would like to act, how you would like to express yourself. They care about you being interested in becoming a member of the military and dressing how they expect you to dress, acting how they expect you to act, expressing yourself how they expect you to, according to their rules. If you can't do that, then you don't need to be there.

[Jackie2]

My point is, the military does not care how you would like to dress, how you would like to act, how you would like to express yourself. They care about you being interested in becoming a member of the military and dressing how they expect you to dress, acting how they expect you to act, expressing yourself how they expect you to, according to their rules. If you can't do that, then you don't need to be there.

My dad was military - so I totally understand Paul's point here.  Conformance is the word - conform to their expectations and you'll do fine, if you can't, they don't want you.

[daMamma]

My point is, the military does not care how you would like to dress, how you would like to act, how you would like to express yourself. They care about you being interested in becoming a member of the military and dressing how they expect you to dress, acting how they expect you to act, expressing yourself how they expect you to, according to their rules. If you can't do that, then you don't need to be there.

My dad was military - so I totally understand Paul's point here.  Conformance is the word - conform to their expectations and you'll do fine, if you can't, they don't want you.

Totally! The military is about cookie cutter soldiers, there is no such thing as variety.